Alaska Consol. Canneries v. Territory of Alaska
Citation | 16 F.2d 256 |
Decision Date | 22 November 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 4931.,4931. |
Parties | ALASKA CONSOL. CANNERIES v. TERRITORY OF ALASKA. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
16 F.2d 256 (1926)
ALASKA CONSOL. CANNERIES
v.
TERRITORY OF ALASKA.
No. 4931.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 22, 1926.
J. A. Hellenthal and S. Hellenthal, both of Juneau, Alaska, for plaintiff in error.
John Rustgard, Atty. Gen., of Alaska, for Territory of Alaska.
Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES, District Judge.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This was an action to recover the balance due on certain license taxes imposed by the territory of Alaska, pursuant to chapter 101 of the Laws of 1923, on certain salmon canneries operated by the Alaska Consolidated Canneries. The act of 1923 amended two sections of a similar act of 1921 (chapter 31 of the Laws of 1921), and declared an emergency, so that a brief reference to the prior act becomes necessary to a proper understanding of the questions presented for decision.
Section 1 of the act of 1921 provided that any person, firm, or corporation prosecuting, or attempting to prosecute, certain lines of business, or who should employ certain appliances in the territory of Alaska, should apply for and obtain a license and pay for such license for the respective lines of business as therein provided. Then followed an enumeration of certain lines of business for which licenses were required and the amount of the license fee for each. Included in this enumeration was the business of salmon canning. The fee for the license was in some instances a fixed sum, but generally the amount of the tax depended upon the amount of the business transacted during the year, and was not ascertainable until the end of the year. To overcome this difficulty, section 2 of the act provided that, if the tax for the license applied for was a fixed sum, the amount of the license tax should accompany the application; but, if the amount of the tax was not a fixed sum, the applicant should state in his application that he agreed to pay the license tax, and would make a true return, and would pay to the treasurer such tax on or before the 15th of the next ensuing January.
Section 10 of the act declared all taxes levied pursuant thereto, together with penalties and accrued interest, a lien upon the real and personal property of the person, firm, or corporation liable therefor, paramount and superior to all mortgages, hypothecations, conveyances, and assignments. Section 13 repealed chapter 33 of the Session Laws of 1919, relating to the same subject, but with a saving clause providing that nothing therein contained should be construed to relieve any person, firm, or corporation from paying any tax, penalty, or interest accrued and owing under the provisions of the act repealed; but all such taxes, penalties, and interest should be paid, collected, and enforced in the same manner as the taxes provided for in the amendatory act. Section 14 provided as follows:
"Except as otherwise provided in this act, all licenses shall be issued for the calendar year, beginning on January 1st and ending on December 31st of each year, and where the tax is not a fixed sum, but is computed after the close of the year's business, it shall be computed on the basis of the business done during such calendar year, and all taxes for the current year shall be calculated upon the basis of the schedule adopted by this act."
Section 1 of the act of 1923 amended section 1 of the act of 1921 in certain respects
Prior to the passage of the act of 1923, the Alaska Consolidated Canneries obtained what is styled provisional licenses to carry on the business of canning salmon at its different canneries in the territory during the year 1923, and agreed that at the close of the year it would file or cause to be filed with the treasurer of the territory true returns of the business transacted under the authority of the licenses applied for and would pay to the territory the license taxes prescribed by law. The Consolidated Canneries paid all license taxes due the territory on the basis of the schedule contained in the act of 1921, but refused to pay the additional taxes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown Bark I, L.P. v. Traverse City Light & Power Dept.
...debt); Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 619, 22 S.Ct. 493, 46 L.Ed. 713 (1902) (same); Alaska Consol. Canneries v. Territory of Alaska, 16 F.2d 256, 257 (9th Cir.1926) (same).ACLU of Tennessee, 441 F.3d at 373-74. The panel went on to apply this reasoning to conclude that the extra charge for......
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. Bredesen, 04-6393.
...contractual debt); Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 619, 22 S.Ct. 493, 46 L.Ed. 713 (1902) (same); Alaska Consol. Canneries v. Territory of Alaska, 16 F.2d 256, 257 (9th Cir.1926) The Fifth Circuit has relied upon the definition of tax in Anderson to hold that a challenge to the collection of......
-
Olson v. State Conservation Comm'n
...taxes during the very years for which permits or licenses had been granted in pursuance of prior laws. Alaska Consol. Canneries v. Territory of Alaska, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 256;Alaska Consol. Canneries, Inc., v. Territory of Alaska, 9 Cir., 29 F.2d 401;Western Union Tel. Co. v. Harris, Tenn.Ch.,......